,3 

.3^ 



A * i 




TS it in the interest of history in schools 
-■- that a fuller definition of the history 
requirement be made by the American 
Historical Association showing the 
especial points to be emphasized and 
those to be more lightly treated ? 



A DISCUSSION 

J. Ft; SUTTON 

It 

Vice-Principal of the Oakland, California, 
High School 



^^^ 

^ ^'^ 



>J> 






nuiniiuiiuiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiniiiiimiiniiiiiiiiN 

OAPER read by Mr. J. R. Sutton, 
Vice -Principal of the Oakland High 
School, Oakland, California, before the 
Panama-Pacific Historical Congress (Ameri- 
can Historical Association, American Asiatic 
Association, and Asiatic Institute), at the Uni- 
versity of California, Berkeley, July 22, 1915. 

niiimniiiiimiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiii^ 



By tranter 51 
The White House, 



Published by 

Allyn and Bacon 

Boston New York Chicago 



Topic for consideration: 

** TS it in the interest of history in schools that a fuller 
-^ definition of the history requirement be made by the 
American Historical Association, showing the especial points 
to be emphasized and those to be more lightly treated? " 

At the risk of seeming ultra conservative, I ven- 

Report of the twxQ to answer this question in the negative. 
Committee _ . ,o-- , ^ , . 

of Seven Previous to loVV there was no approach to uni- 

formity in the history courses given in our sec- 
ondary schools. Furthermore, the schools that gave a four years* 
course in history were exceedingly few. But in that year the 
Committee of Seven made its famous report, and schools at once 
began to model their history courses after the committee's 
scheme. The result is that now, sixteen years later, there is a 
fair degree of uniformity in the history work of the secondary 
schools of the United States, and a four years* course is the rule 

rather than the exception. In 1911, the Commit- 
^^® . tee of Five made the tentative suggestion that Eng- 

of Five lish and mediaeval European history be combined 

in the second year with emphasis on English his- 
tory, and that the third year be devoted to modem history. 
Little attention has been paid to this suggestion, and thus today 
the four-year history courses in our secondary schools are based 
on the recommendations of the Committee of Seven. 
. -^ Now, why should a new committee be appointed to 

Recommen- send out to the history teachers of the nation a 

dations j^g^ recommendation relative to the content of his- 

Advisable ? i • i i 

tory courses? Such a recommendation would not 

make for greater uniformity. On the other hand it would tend 

to destroy such uniformity as now exists; for some schools would 



follow the new recommendation, while others would abide by the 
old plan. The desire for a new committee and a new report 
grows out of dissatisfaction with certain features of the course 
as mapped out by the Committee of Seven. The changes advo- 
cated may be summed up in three statements: 

1. That the course in history should cover three 
X^® instead of four years, English history as a separate 
Proposed course being discontinued. 

2. TTiat the point of division between the first and 
the second year's work be moved along from the year 814 to 
1600 or 1700 A. D. 

3. That American colonial history be disposed of during the 
second year as a part of European history, leaving the third year 
for American history and government since 1 760. 

It is true that English history as a separate 
Losing Ground course is losing ground; not because English his- 
tory lacks inherent value, but because so many 
other subjects — business courses, industrial courses, current 
English, current history, economics, etc. — have come into the 
curriculum to compete for the pupils' time. This competition is 
especially keen in the case of English history, because the ma- 
jority of this wide range of electives are open, as in English his- 
tory, only to third or fourth-year pupils. But there are still 
some of our pupils, especially in the large schools, who want 
English history. I can think of no good reason why they should 
not have it. Of course it cannot be made obligatory, but neither 
can ancient or European history. Any attempt on the part of 
history teachers to make any of the history courses, other than 
American history and government, obligatory, is certain to meet 
with failure, on account of the new courses that have been recently 
admitted and of others that are knocking for admission. If by 
surrendering English history we could have a three years' course, 
required of all for graduation, the proposition would seem more 
attractive; but to surrender it without any compensation, when 
some pupils want it, seems uncalled for. 

6 



The one feature of the course outlined by the 
Point Between Committee of Seven which is meeting with the 
First and most persistent criticism in certain quarters is 

^Qj.^ the division point — the year 8 1 4 A. D. — between 

the first and the second year's work. It is 

proposed to move this point of division to the middle of the 

seventeenth or the beginning of the eighteenth century in 

order to gain more time for modern history. The proposition 

is so important, and to my mind so serious, that it should 

be considered with the utmost care and discussed with the 

utmost frankness. I admit the desirability of having more 

time for modern history, but considering the matter from all 

points of view, I prefer to retain the year 814 as the end of 

the first year's course. 

In the first place, I assume that the first year's 

The Course in work is to be taken by first-year, or ninth- 

Ancient History , ., » i , i i i i i 

Must Be Adapted grade, pupils. As 1 have already stated, 1 do 

to the Ninth j^q^. believe that ancient history or European 

history can ever be required for graduation — 
at least in our large city schools. These subjects must remain 
optional and must compete with other subjects. It would, there- 
fore, be a serious thing for high school history not to begin with 
the ninth year. If left to the second year, after the interests of 
pupils have been established along other lines, the number of 
those electing history will be greatly diminished. The whole mat- 
ter, therefore, reduces itself to the proposition of giving to pupils 
of the ninth grade a course in history from the earliest beginnings 
down to 1600 or 1700 A. D. 

I do not need to dwell here upon the capabilities 
tions of the ' °^ boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen years of 
Ninth Grader age. They are enthusiastic, willing to work, 

eager to learn. But their mental horizon is very 
limited; their understanding of human affairs is confined almost 
within the bounds of their own meager experience; their power 
to think logically is just beginning to dawn; and their ability to 



concentrate their minds upon any subject is so undeveloped that 
it is very difficult for them, by their own unaided efforts, to arrive 
at a clear understanding of the meaning of an ordinary para- 
graph in any of our text-books of history. The course as out- 
lined by the Committee of Seven for the first year extends, in 
point of time, from the earliest beginnings — about 5000 B. C. — 
to the year 814 A. D. To appreciate the passage of that im- 
mense stretch of time requires the maturity of an adult, the 
mental training of a university graduate, and the imagination of 
a poet. But something can be done with boys and girls of four- 
teen and fifteen if they are not required to hurry. By carefully 
selecting the parts that are to be emphasized and the parts that 
are to be more lightly treated, the ground to 814 A. D. can be 
covered in the first year with some degree of satisfaction. If, 
however, the whole mediaeval period of history were to be added 
to the year's work, I firmly believe that the result, from an edu- 
cational point of view, would be disastrous, — disastrous because 
it would put so much into the course that the whole purpose of 
the year's work would be defeated. 

I believe that we will all agree that our business 
The Danger jg jjQt go much to teach history as to educate 

Too Much boys and girls. We use history as a valuable 

instrument in the process. If we make the in- 
strument too cumbersome, we fail. We can't teach a five-year- 
old boy to mow grass with a scythe. A first-year pupil, who 
should be driven over a course in history extending to the end 
of the mediaeval period, would emerge from the year's work 
with his head buzzing with vague notions. He would have 
gained no definite information as to the subject-matter thus 
bolted, would have acquired no vital interest in history, would 
have formed no careful habits of study. In fact, the year's work 
would not further the process of his education in the slightest 
degree, for the hop-skip-and-jump method of disposing of huge 
masses of material can result in nothing but foggy ideas and 
slovenly habits — and these have no educative value. 

8 



Those who advocate the inclusion of the mediaeval 

As to the period in the first year's work expect to be able to 
Selection of , ,,,.,. . , . . 

Material cover the ground by eliminating many items which 

are now regarded as of some importance; and we 
hear a good many depreciatory remarks about burdening our 
pupils' minds with such matters of detail as the reign of Rameses 
III, the ambitions of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus the Great, the 
reforms of Solon, the conquests of Alexander, or the love affairs 
of Cleopatra or Henry VIII. Whatever one may think of this 
or that item as a topic appropriate for consideration in a sec- 
ondary history course, the fact remains that Egypt, Babylonia, 
Assyria, Persia, the various Greek cities, Macedonia, and Rome, 
each had a continuous story, which takes its place as a part of 
the larger story of the ancient world. Here are certain facts, 
certain events leading to certain results, certain theories put into 
practice, certain great movements, rivalries, alliances, tragedies, 
advances toward righteousness, all blending together into a won- 
derful story. Men dispute as to many of the details, but not 
as to the main drift of the story. Any course in ancient history 
that does not make clear, insist upon, and take time to develop 
this main drift cannot be very effective in furthering the process 
of education. 

The mind acquires power when by a deter- 
Must Make Clear mined effort it incorporates any logically 

the Main Drift arranged body of knowledge; but when it is 

of the Story , , . . , 

merely exposed to a great mass or material 

and is then hurried on to another mass without time to analyze, 

to arrange, to compare, to meditate, it acquires no strength from 

the experience, for it simply refuses to act. If one is dissatisfied 

with the selection of material found in the various textbooks of 

ancient history, let him make his own selection; but let him 

remember that his selection must make clear the main drift of 

the story of the ancient world. That is independent of him and 

he cannot change it. Another thing which he must keep in 

mind is the immaturity of ninth-grade boys and girls. Still 



emother fact is that education is a slow and steady growth, and 
that there is no royal road to it. Time must be allowed for 
these young people not only to comprehend the passage of sev- 
enty centuries, which in itself is a stupendous conception, but 
also to learn many names and facts — for there will be many 
names and facts no matter what the selection of material may 
be — , and to arrange them into a complete whole. 

^ , The proposition of adding the mediaeval 

Reasons for • i i r > i i 

Adding Mediaeval period to the hrst year s work seems to be 

Period to First based upon two assumptions: first, that the 

ancient and mediaeval periods of history are 
of little, if of any importance, and are therefore to be disposed 
of as quickly and as painlessly as possible; and second, that 
modern history is Per se both more interesting and more valu- 
able than the story of the earlier periods. I do not wholly accept 
either of these assumptions. Since our business is to educate 
young boys and girls, we should teach no period of history simply 
to be rid of it, but should use each period as a valuable instru- 
ment in our work. That ancient or mediaeval history can 
thus be used, there can be no question. As far as the element of 
interest is concerned — and it is an element of tremendous im- 
portance — any phase of history is as interesting to a class as 
the teacher is able to make it. Some teachers can arouse more 
interest in the struggle between the Egyptians and the Hitlites 
than others can arouse in the French Revolution or the Ameri- 
can Civil War. Interest in historic events does not depend so 
much upon their location in point of time as upon how they 
are used to make great national or international crises, with 
their accompanying human emotions, sympathies, and passions, 
live again. 

There can be no doubt that the history of the 

Danger of an eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in that they 
Unscholarly . ,. , , 111 i- 1 1 

Attitude immediately precede and lead up directly to the 

present, possesses a certain kind of importance 

that no former period has. But I firmly believe that the pupil 

10 



who takes the two years* course with the year 814 as the divid- 
ing point will at the end of the course more deeply comprehend 
the modern period than the pupil who devotes his entire second 
year to the last two centuries after having skimmed lightly over 
the whole preceding stretch of centuries. The reason is that 
the one will come to a study of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries with a fair understanding of the history of the preced- 
ing centuries, together with the mental power that comes from 
acquiring that understanding; while the other will come to the 
modern period with vague notions concerning earlier times and 
the unscholarly attitude which inevitably accompanies the acquisi- 
tion of vague notions. 

^ . . I am unwilling to admit that modern history 

Bearing of . , 111 1 

Ancient History is at every point more valuable to us than 

upon Present ancient or mediaeval history. Knowledge of 

Day Problems , , • 1 1 1 1 1 • 

the past may be said to be valuable m pro- 
portion as it helps us rightly to understand the present — al- 
though this of course is not the sole element of value. Ancient 
and mediaeval history abounds in lessons that greatly illuminate 
the problems of the present and of the recent past. The prob- 
lem of political union or separation, as settled in different ways 
by the Greeks and by the Romans, with such far-reaching results, 
helps us to understand that same problem as applied to our own 
country. The controversy in Athens over the question of build- 
ing a strong navy, the way it was decided, and the final outcome, 
would doubtless be of value to us in our present controversy over 
the same question. Rome's "Monroe Doctrine" over Sicily and 
later over the rest of the Mediterranean world, and its final 
results, might give us some hint as to the importance of our 
own Monroe Doctrine. If the American people had had the 
patience to learn what ancient and mediaeval history has to 
teach respecting slavery and its final disappearance, our great 
Civil War might have been avoided. Our colonial system is in 
large measure based upon that of Rome. Rome has much to 
teach us, too, respecting the struggle between the classes that 

11 



enjoy special privileges and those that do not. I do not ques- 
tion that modern history has much hght to throw upon the 
present day problems — and that is its unique 

Unique Advantage advantage—, but the advice that comes to 
of Ancient and . , i- i • 

Mediaeval History us from ancient and mediaeval times has 

one marked advantage over what comes to 

us from the last two centuries: it is final. It comes with a period, 

not with a question mark at the end of it; for sufficient time has 

elapsed to register the final results of politics, rivalries, social 

forces, and other elements that made up the life of those early 

times. 

To my mind one of the most serious objections 

v.. 'f *^*'°^* ^** to carrying the first year's work beyond the year 
Slighting oi^ • 1 f 1 1 1 -1 I- 1 

Roman History ol4 is the fact that such a plan necessarily slights 

the history of Rome. The Roman Empire is the 
central point in the history of the world; for the attainments, 
the advances toward civilization, of all previous peoples, are 
appropriated by Rome and passed on to succeeding generations. 
From Rome as a starting-point, therefore, the history of the 
modern world begins, so that to the student of history all roads 
lead to Rome figuratively, as they once did actually. It follows 
that any course in European history that does not take time to 
impress upon the minds of the pupils the tremendous significance 
of Rome is fundamentally wrong. 

The nature of the period immediately follow- 
Death of Charle- jj^g ^j^g death of Charlemagne furnishes another 
magne a Logical i . • • i i- • • i r • 

Dividing Line objection to including it in the hrst year s 

work. Down to the fifth century the civilized 
world had for many generations lived a settled, comparatively 
peaceful life. Then come three centuries of confusion and dis- 
order caused by the German and the Mohammedan invasions. 
In the eighth century the Franks under the Carolingians bring 
order out of chaos. A class of young people following the pro- 
gress of events feel that with Charlemagne they have once more 
reached solid ground, for again there is unity and comparative 

12 



peace. Here it seems to me is the logical place to end the first 

year's work, for on beyond is another long period of confusion 

and disorder, unquestionably the most difficult period in the 

world's history to understand. 

And now after all this argument relative to the 

The Real Pur- subject-matter of the first and second-year 
pose in Teach- ... . , . 

ing History courses m history, permit me to state that in 

my opinion the acquirement of any given sub- 
ject-matter by the pupil is not the sole end or aim of the course. 
Whether pupils spend a half-year or an entire year on the mod- 
ern period, or any other period of history, the information which 
they acquire will speedily be forgotten. So true is this that if 
we teach history solely for the purpose of making it stick in the 
memory of the pupil, we all fail. Our real purpose is to give our 
pupils a deeper sympathy for humanity, and a broader vision 
of life; to give them a surer grasp of present day social, economic, 
and political problems; to develop in them the power to search 
intelligently for the truth relative to delicate and complicated 
human affairs, and to be able to distinguish between truth and 
near-truth; and finally to help them acquire such moral strength 
as will come from contemplating the successes and failures of 
men in the past — for the causes of these successes drive home 
with unanswerable logic the truth of that great moral law that 
"whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." If our 
work is well done, these things will abide though the facts of 
history fade from the mind. Thus the proposition that ancient 
and mediaeval history be slighted in order to increase the time 
devoted to modern history on the theory that the facts of the 
more recent period are. Per se, more useful to the student than 
those of former periods, is not valid, for the facts of any period, 
no matter how well learned, will soon be forgotten. 

The suggestion that the colonial period of American history 
be taken care of as a part of the preceding course in modern 
history would doubtless meet with universal approval if mod- 
ern history could be made a requirement for graduation. I do 

13 



not believe that this can be done, and therefore I cannot see how 

the proposition can be entertained. 

-T _ ., , Finally, for the reasons which I have tried to 

No Radical *' , , , 

Change in make clear, 1 do not believe that any radical 

History Course change in the history course as outlined by the 

> / Committee of Seven is advisable. Individual 

school systems should be encouraged to try such modifications 

of the course as seem wise to them. For example, I am strongly 

in favor of giving a year and a half to American history and 

government. Those who feel so inclined may profitably try the 

experiment of adding the mediaeval period to the first year's 

work, or of making any other change that appeals to them. But 

I feel that a report of a national committee as to a revised course 

would be of little value until such experiments have led to some 

conclusions that are fairly definite and rather widely accepted. 

To my mind a far more important question than that 

A More pf revising the course of study in history is the question 
Important , i i i i • • i 

Problem of how best to use the subject-matter contained 

in the course. The question of what should be the 
content of each year's work, I feel has been answered satisfac- 
torily by the Committee of Seven, but it seems to me the problem 
of aims and methods has not received sufficient attention. I 
believe, therefore, that the American Historical Association would 
render a useful service to the teaching of history in secondary 
schools if they should appoint a committee which, accepting the 
courses as outlined by the Committee of Seven, should make 
detailed suggestions as to the aims and purposes of each year's 
work, and as to the methods to be used to attain those ends. 
Many teachers still proceed upon the assumption that the only 
purpose of any given day's work is to see that their pupils absorb 
the facts recorded on certain pages of the text-book. 

Beyond this, what should they do? There is no time to 
enter into a discussion of this question now, but a definite de- 
tailed answer to it by a committee in which all history teachers 
could have confidence would constitute a report of first importance. 

14 



\ 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



018 461 639 7 ^ 



